The latest Reuters/Zogby poll has McCain ahead of Obama by 5.

Obama needs to quit bitching about McCain questioning his patriotism and go on the offensive. You know who runs positive campaigns? Losers. John Edwards? Loser. John Kerry? Loser. Joe Lieberman? Loser. Al Gore? Loser. Mike Dukakis? Loser.

Obama needs to fight back now. Now. Not in October. Now. You know what happens to Obama if he waits until October? Two words. Rudy Guiliani.

This is really starting to piss me off. Don't any Democrats have any fucking balls??

Yes they sure do......IN MY MOUTH!

Republikans have the negative propaganda machine down to an art. Goebels could take a few lessons from these guys. Meanwhile the Amerikan public eats it up...believes the nonsense of winning in Iraq...drilling for domestic oil...how we need to stand up to the Russians now! The simplicity of the Amerikan public would be funny if the results were so pathetic.

And if you havent donated money to either the Obama...the National democratic party or one of a myriad of democrat attack organizations like Moveon.Com...stop complaining. This country is run on money...we dont elect officials..we buy them...so open up your wallet and put your money where your mouth is. it's the very least you can do.

I also think a lot will be riding on who he picks for VP. he needs to pick a bull dog like Joe Biden or Hillary. We dont need some milktoast Governor Kaine or Evan Bayh who no even has heard of. We need someone with the killer instinct and the temperment to go along with it. better to go down fighting then to sink in mediocrity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2008 10:56AM by Vince(1).

He and his team know what they are doing. I'm not going to say I'm not nervous too, but this is not the Kerry campaign. The blitz is going to start soon--probably today.

Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He and his team know what they are doing. I'm not
> going to say I'm not nervous too, but this is not
> the Kerry campaign. The blitz is going to start
> soon--probably today.


So far his complaining about McCain questioning his patriotism isn't cutting it. Obama needs to go for the throat. I'm not so sure he isn't Kerry. He needs to do something besides run victory laps for an election he hasn't yet won.

I mock you all!

WashingToneLocian, you hummer, remember when you wrote?

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Between Obama's trip overseas and John
> McComplain's constant harping about every little
> think Obama does, Obama is ahead of McComplain by
> 9 percentage points in the latest Gallup tracking
> poll. Maybe John McComplain should spend more time
> talking about how he is going to help the country
> and less time sounding like a septuagenarian
> complaining about the kids kicking a ball on his
> lawn.

Obama up 9, now down 5? That is a 14 point swing! Polls mean crap though. If you were halfway intelligent or knew anything about history, you would know mid-August polls are pure horse shit.

I do find it funny though that all those praying at the church of Obama are now in full blown panic mode. You can attribute it all you want to negative campaigning on the other side, but you have to admit Obama has looked less than Presidential lately. He looked lost on the Georgia issue. He took a vacation to Hawaii when the rest of the country can barely afford gasoline to get to work each week. His vacation also shows his arrogance. He assumed victory and figured he could take time off. He apparantly has never heard the turtle/hare fable.

I do agree, Obama does need to go negative. He can't run on a record and he can't run on an issue position if he keeps changing them. He can continue to keep running negative against Bush, but that tactic is getting pretty beat. For a guy with so many "ideas," you think he'd get an idea on how to run a campaign.

Go ahead, pick Joe Biden. That guy is a gift to McCain. His quotes make for one hell of a commercial. I've never seen a pol who loves the taste of his foot as much as Joe Biden. On the plus side for Dems, he won't need a speechwriter on payroll. He can just "borrow" the speeches.

No one is in a panic....we are in disbelief..that the country and be fooled into a third term of George Bush policies. They certainly have been a sucess! The Iraquis cant want for us to leave...oil at an all time high...the economy is down the tube. All McSame can brag about is his surge...and that as history will undoubtedly show is a short term victory. Not a single one of the issues you mentioned can be described as anything but a mess. Democrats have the issues...they have high ground...let McSame begin to think he's won this election. I cant wait to see who McSame picks for VP..if it isnt a female (the one truly "maverick" thing he could do)...it'll be be some old man like himself or some one from a religious cult group.

Capt. Obvious-

You are right. I made the mistake of assuming Americans weren't total idiots. Apparently more people think like Alias than I thought.

Anyway, I have always had problems with Obama's debating style and that came up during the Rick Warren thing. The guy needs to learn to use SOME canned responses. Saying that the question of when life begins is "above his pay grade" was not only a painfully obvious punt, it came off as flippant. If Obama wants to court pro-life Dems and Independents, that kind of response won't help.

What campaign are you watching? McCain was the one who came out with the Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears ad.


What does that have to do with the issues? What a complete f'up McCain's campaign advisers are!

Oh and it doesn't really matter because no Republican candidate has ever be elected after eight years of republicans plundering of the US governement and the US economy.

Real Estate in shambles, Banks closing, Oil at all time high, Budweiser and American companies for sale to foriegns, immigration gone crazy, Iraq costing us billions and on and on.... stay the same course?????????

Jester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh and it doesn't really matter because no
> Republican candidate has ever be elected after
> eight years of republicans plundering of the US
> governement and the US economy.
>
> Real Estate in shambles, Banks closing, Oil at all
> time high, Budweiser and American companies for
> sale to foriegns, immigration gone crazy, Iraq
> costing us billions and on and on.... stay the
> same course?????????


Not to be snarky, but in 1988 Bush Sr. won after eight years of the Republicans plundering the government. In 1987 you had the biggest stock market crash since 1929. In 1988 you had the S&L Bailout and the collapse of residential real estate. You had Japan and Germany breathing down our necks (I believe the Japanese may have purchased Rockefeller Center around that time) and you had Reagan sign the largest immigration amnesty bill in history.

Not that Obama is Dukakis, but a crappy economy isn't a guarantee of Dems winning.

Vince(1) -- Democrats don't have the issues. In fact, poll after poll shows they are way off base. Take energy for example. It is obviously a VERY imortant issue this election. One poll shows over 70% of those questioned indicate the high gas prices are causing financial hardships in their households. In poll after porll, over 60% of registered voters favor drilling for oil and natural gas off the US Coast - Democrats don't. A majority of respondents favor the expansion of nuclear - Democrats don't. Likewise, a healthy majority of Americans favor building more nuclear plants - Democrats don't. To make matters worse, and as I mentioned above, while America is struggling with energy prices, Obama is doing his best impression of Nero by vacationing in Hawaii. A more prepared candidate would have NEVER taken that vacation. If he wanted time off, which I understand, he should have shown his solidarity with the public and taken a staycation.

The Democrats energy plans are costly. I favor the expansion and use of alternatives, but also see the limitations of them in their current technological and infrastructure state. These energy production methods are and will be the future, but they shouldn't be the death of our current energy needs.

Looking at Iraq (without debating getting into the war in the first place), Obama's hard timetable is losing support and trending away from his position. 9 months ago, an overwhelming majority favored a 16 month timetable. Today, the number is dwindling and only half those polled favor his plan. Also, in order to claim the high ground on issues, Obama has to stand for something. So far, he has stood for everything which is akin to standing for nothing. You know his position changes as well as the next man, so there is no need to list them here.

WashingToneLocian -- calling the American people idiots stinks of the same elitism Obama is trying to shake. 62M+ think vastly different than you do. I realize that you have cornered the market on intelectual discourse in this nation and it is very difficult to recognize a semblance of intelligence in those that could possible disagree with you. It must be difficult being the smartest man in the room. As far as "above his paygrade," what is in his paygrade? I really don't even understand his rationale. We knew he thought the issue was above his paygrade when he voted present as a state senator. At what point can he take responsibility for his views? What other important issues are above his paygrade?

Jester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What campaign are you watching? McCain was the
> one who came out with the Paris Hilton and
> Brittany Spears ad.
>
>
> What does that have to do with the issues? What a
> complete f'up McCain's campaign advisers are!


Apparently the good Senator from Illinois thought it was relevant in February of 2005.

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> WashingToneLocian -- calling the American people
> idiots stinks of the same elitism Obama is trying
> to shake. 62M+ think vastly different than you
> do.

The U.S. trails every other industrialized nation and many developing ones in math and science. Most Americans don't go to college and of those who do, half will drop out. More Americans know who Paris Hilton is than who Condoleeza Rice is.

The American people are (by and large) idiots.

I realize that you have cornered the market
> on intelectual discourse in this nation and it is
> very difficult to recognize a semblance of
> intelligence in those that could possible disagree
> with you.

If someone makes an intelligent argument, I will weigh it and consider it. I am not above being convinced at looking at something in a different way. People like Alias don't make intelligent arguments.

It must be difficult being the smartest
> man in the room.

That's your interpretation, not mine.

As far as "above his paygrade,"
> what is in his paygrade? I really don't even
> understand his rationale. We knew he thought the
> issue was above his paygrade when he voted present
> as a state senator. At what point can he take
> responsibility for his views? What other
> important issues are above his paygrade?

As I said before, I thought it was a crappy answer. I believe his "rationale" was that only God determines when life begins. But, like I said, it was a bad punt. As for "other important issues," I believe Obama has given the answers to those questions. You can accept them or reject them.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The U.S. trails every other industrialized nation
> and many developing ones in math and science. Most
> Americans don't go to college and of those who do,
> half will drop out. More Americans know who Paris
> Hilton is than who Condoleeza Rice is.

Agreed, and it is deplorable. I would assume then that you strongly support President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative to address this issue. Is school choice and/or vouchers an answer?


> As I said before, I thought it was a crappy
> answer. I believe his "rationale" was that only
> God determines when life begins. But, like I said,
> it was a bad punt. As for "other important
> issues," I believe Obama has given the answers to
> those questions. You can accept them or reject
> them.

I understand the "God determines when life begins." He should have just said that though. However, let's logically play this out. If he is hedging on when a baby gets rights, how can he adequately ever legislate or make policy decisions on this issue. In a way, admitting you do not know when a fetus becomes a human being and then continuing to support abortion rights is akin to going into Iraq with faulty intelligence. If he isn't sure when life begins, shouldn't he err on the side of caution and protect human life?

All in all, I stand by my original assertion. He is doing as much damage to his own campaig as McCain is.

As evidenced by the election four years ago, it is true the American people are (by and large) idiots. They'll either figure it out this time or they won't.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I understand the "God determines when life
> begins." He should have just said that though.

I agree.

> However, let's logically play this out. If he is
> hedging on when a baby gets rights, how can he
> adequately ever legislate or make policy decisions
> on this issue.

He doesn't. The Congress creates legislation. Ultimately what stays and doesn't stay is determined by the Supreme Court's interpretation of Roe V. Wade. If you look at Roe V. Wade, the First Trimester is not even an issue. It is the Second and Third that become debatable. Obama will need to make his decisions on the legislation based on how closely it aligns with common interpretation of Roe V. Wade in order for it to hold up to a challenge, which will happen. If it doesn't stand up to Roe V. Wade, Obama will need to Veto it.

In a way, admitting you do not
> know when a fetus becomes a human being and then
> continuing to support abortion rights is akin to
> going into Iraq with faulty intelligence.

The two situations have nothing in common.

If he
> isn't sure when life begins, shouldn't he err on
> the side of caution and protect human life?

You should err on the side of legal precedent. Even Dubya didn't err on the side of protecting human life. Did he try to introduce a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? No? There's your answer.

>
> All in all, I stand by my original assertion. He
> is doing as much damage to his own campaig as
> McCain is.

Ummm, I believe that was MY original assertion. Who started this thread anyway?

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He doesn't. The Congress creates legislation.

He isn't President yet, he currently is in the legislature and served in a state legislature. He has in the past and currently has the power to propose, amend, and ultimately pass legislation.


> Ultimately what stays and doesn't stay is
> determined by the Supreme Court's interpretation
> of Roe V. Wade. If you look at Roe V. Wade, the
> First Trimester is not even an issue. It is the
> Second and Third that become debatable. Obama will
> need to make his decisions on the legislation
> based on how closely it aligns with common
> interpretation of Roe V. Wade in order for it to
> hold up to a challenge, which will happen. If it
> doesn't stand up to Roe V. Wade, Obama will need
> to Veto it.

You can veto legislation that does meet muster under Roe. You can veto legislation for any or no reason.

> The two situations have nothing in common.

They are analagous. He says he doesn't know when life begins. That is an admission that life and its associated rights could POSSIBLY begin at conception. If they do, and that is an IF, then abortion is responsible for killing human beings and depriving them of the right to life. Likewise, not having all the information before going into Iraq has had drastic consequences.

Basically it is like saying "if you knew now what you knew then" would you be for abortion/Iraq war?

> You should err on the side of legal precedent.
> Even Dubya didn't err on the side of protecting
> human life. Did he try to introduce a
> Constitutional Amendment banning abortion? No?
> There's your answer.

It's not as simple as that.

> Ummm, I believe that was MY original assertion.
> Who started this thread anyway?

No, you said he needs to go on the "offensive" and "fight back." I contend that his OWN actions are his biggest failures in this campaign. There is a difference. Besides, not everyone can keep up with the amount of threads you start, well, maybe Meade.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> He isn't President yet, he currently is in the
> legislature and served in a state legislature. He
> has in the past and currently has the power to
> propose, amend, and ultimately pass legislation.
>
>
He won't be doing that before the election and regardless of how things go on election day it will be a moot point (like you are going to care about his Senate record in 2009?)

>
> You can veto legislation that does meet muster
> under Roe. You can veto legislation for any or no
> reason.
>

You were asking what criteria he would use and I gave you an example. You can be dense or intellectually dishonest if you want, but I replied to your question.



>
> They are analagous. He says he doesn't know when
> life begins. That is an admission that life and
> its associated rights could POSSIBLY begin at
> conception. If they do, and that is an IF, then
> abortion is responsible for killing human beings
> and depriving them of the right to life.
> Likewise, not having all the information before
> going into Iraq has had drastic consequences.
>

They aren't even close. Bush never said Saddam may or may not have WMD so we must invade. He said he believed strongly that Saddam had WMD, or was developing them. Obama isn't saying life definitely begins at X. See the difference?

You are actually arguing against yourself. You want Obama to overturn legal precedent without having all the facts. THAT is like invading Iraq without all of the information.

> Basically it is like saying "if you knew now what
> you knew then" would you be for abortion/Iraq war?
>

No it's not. As I explained before.

> It's not as simple as that.

Yes it is.

>

> No, you said he needs to go on the "offensive" and
> "fight back." I contend that his OWN actions are
> his biggest failures in this campaign. There is a
> difference. Besides, not everyone can keep up
> with the amount of threads you start, well, maybe
> Meade.

It was THIS thread and I vented my frustration at Obama's lack of action, not McCain's actions.

Dear Capt...you do appear to have the gospel according to the republikan party down pat. There isnt an issue you mentioned that isn't catered to the whims of the American public as refelcted in polls. The facts..increasing US oil production will do nothing but make the shareholders of oil companies even richer then they are today..and is counter to what should be our national security goal of reducing our dependence on foreign and domestic oil. Until he started reading the same polls youre reading...your Sen McSame felt the same way. What a flip flopper! Nuclear power may are may not be a viable solution..it is not without its risks. Everyone is favor of nuclear until the issues of where to build these plants and where to dispose of the spent fuel are brought up. Watch your polls when they decide to build a plant in your back yard.

There is no greater moral failure then this country's war with Iraq. We were intentionally lied to by your president to get in. It is BS that others supported the conclusion they had WMD. Evidence to the contrary was known..and intentionally ignored. And even if you accepted that fact..to "quote" your president...In the 21st century..one country invading another country is unacceptable...oh yeah..unless of course we want to! So...the fact that current polls show Amerikans getting soft on withdrawing from Iraq...does not make it right..nor does it make the Republikans on the right side of the issue.

And as far as the abortion issue...Obama's response should have been..abortion now...abortion forever..abortion until they peel my hands off the scappel. Reproductive freedom does not belong in the hands of the central government as they are in Communist China. They belong in the concious of every American woman.

Democrats should stand up and be proud of the progress they have made in society the last 60 years..it is phenominal and unprescedented. If republikans had their way we'd still have apartheid in the south,,and women would be back in the kitchen. This is the truth...and none of your polls mean a thing.

All this speculation is moot anyway -- the superdelegates are totally going to stab Obama in the back and nominate Hillary at the convention.

If he keeps up his current performance maybe he'll deserve it.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Capt...you do appear to have the gospel
> according to the republikan party down pat. There
> isnt an issue you mentioned that isn't catered to
> the whims of the American public as refelcted in
> polls. The facts..increasing US oil production
> will do nothing but make the shareholders of oil
> companies even richer then they are today..and is
> counter to what should be our national security
> goal of reducing our dependence on foreign and
> domestic oil. Until he started reading the same
> polls youre reading...your Sen McSame felt the
> same way. What a flip flopper! Nuclear power may
> are may not be a viable solution..it is not
> without its risks. Everyone is favor of nuclear
> until the issues of where to build these plants
> and where to dispose of the spent fuel are brought
> up. Watch your polls when they decide to build a
> plant in your back yard.
>
> There is no greater moral failure then this
> country's war with Iraq. We were intentionally
> lied to by your president to get in. It is BS
> that others supported the conclusion they had WMD.
> Evidence to the contrary was known..and
> intentionally ignored. And even if you accepted
> that fact..to "quote" your president...In the 21st
> century..one country invading another country is
> unacceptable...oh yeah..unless of course we want
> to! So...the fact that current polls show
> Amerikans getting soft on withdrawing from
> Iraq...does not make it right..nor does it make
> the Republikans on the right side of the issue.
>
> And as far as the abortion issue...Obama's
> response should have been..abortion now...abortion
> forever..abortion until they peel my hands off the
> scappel. Reproductive freedom does not belong in
> the hands of the central government as they are in
> Communist China. They belong in the concious of
> every American woman.
>
> Democrats should stand up and be proud of the
> progress they have made in society the last 60
> years..it is phenominal and unprescedented. If
> republikans had their way we'd still have
> apartheid in the south,,and women would be back in
> the kitchen. This is the truth...and none of your
> polls mean a thing.


Vince, I found out where you get all of your info:

http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/nigel_jones/horse_shit.html

Finally!






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2008 09:17PM by WashingToneLocian.

ouch

Hey Froggy..pop your magic twanger and dissapear!

WashingToneLocian asks if any Democrats have any balls, what are you blind? Hillary has the biggest set in recorded history, BIATCH
Attachments:

The hits keep coming....

Nevada...




Indiana...




As Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local." Hopefully Obama's state-by-state strategy works.

Another one!

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another one!
>
>


To be fair, Barry Obama would probably have more if Rezco wasn't in jail. It is hard to give the pols in your pockets sweetheart land deals from behind bars.

Fair? Comparing a man who was offically critized for poor judegement when he helped almost bankrupt the savings & loan industry in this country..a man who left his diabled first wife for a rich blond bomb shell...to a man buying his first house..who was investigated for the apparent sweet deal and not even charged with any crime..no conflict of interest no congressional reprimand?

Go right ahead.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fair? Comparing a man who was offically critized
> for poor judegement when he helped almost bankrupt
> the savings & loan industry in this country..a man
> who left his diabled first wife for a rich blond
> bomb shell...to a man buying his first house..who
> was investigated for the apparent sweet deal and
> not even charged with any crime..no conflict of
> interest no congressional reprimand?
>
> Go right ahead.


Let's be clear. McCain's first wife wasn't disabled. She had a limp. A LIMP.

God forbid Cindy's botox goes awry.

got it...McSame dumped her because she had a limp! god forbid she ever had acne.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> got it...McSame dumped her because she had a limp!
> god forbid she ever had acne.


This segment includes footage of Carol McCain limping...



The guy is an asshole who fucks women he isn't married to. He did it to Carol McCain and you can bet he's doing it to Cindy. He's an asshole.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 10:17PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper, a prolific poster here at FU, believes
> that infidelity is not immoral.
>
> Do you disagree with his position,
> WashingToneLocian?


Having never cheated on my wife, I would tend to believe it is immoral. However, I think if a Presidential candidate is running as a "values" candidate, his supporters need to know what kind of values he has. In other words, will he abandon his wife and children - the same wife who waited for him while he was in the Hanoi Hilton - because she had a limp? As bad as Bill Clinton was, he wasn't that shallow...and he never ran as the arbiter of morality like most GOP candidates do.

LOL, I never said that. Once again, the fucking lamer that sits behind his computer posting as "Alias/Moderator" has no point, and is forced to make shit up so that he has something to yammer away about.

What I said was that I wouldn't cheat, not because it is immoral, but because I think it is dumb to hurt people that are supposed to trust you. Some folks might think it's perfectly "moral" to cheat on their spouse- that kind of lifestyle actually works for some couples, and more power to them. Maybe trust isn't as important to them as it is to me.

Morals are temporary things, but wisdom is forever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2008 09:39AM by TheMeeper.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TheMeeper, a prolific poster here at FU,
> believes
> > that infidelity is not immoral.
> >
> > Do you disagree with his position,
> > WashingToneLocian?
>
>
> Having never cheated on my wife, I would tend to
> believe it is immoral. However, I think if a
> Presidential candidate is running as a "values"
> candidate, his supporters need to know what kind
> of values he has. In other words, will he abandon
> his wife and children - the same wife who waited
> for him while he was in the Hanoi Hilton - because
> she had a limp? As bad as Bill Clinton was, he
> wasn't that shallow...and he never ran as the
> arbiter of morality like most GOP candidates do.

I tend to agree that it is in fact immoral. I do give Sen. McCain credit though (some, not much) for attributing the collapse of his first marriage to his own selfishness and immaturity. That does not absolve him of responsibility, but it is far less flippant than President Clinton handled the situation. Further, if the "woman scorned" can forgive him, support his candidacy and remain friends with him, perhaps he deserves a chance. But, the infidelity issue plagued too many Presidential candidates in the GOP field this cycle. And, as long as we are speaking of candidates that run as the arbiter of morality (your words), we might as well include John Edwards in that list.

Maybe if Obama had anything of substance to talk about he wouldn't keep repeating that he doesn't have time for Brittany or Paris. Yet he doesn't seem to talk about much else of substance. It is hard to see how you can say he has run a positive campaign when he hasn't said much of anything. And every time he is asked to talk about substance, he tells everyone to go to his web site to read the details......

???

If he can't articulate them in public, how can he believe in them? And what, did he even write them on his web site? Somehow I am sure it was someone else that articulated them for him.

Speaking of lacking substance, your post comes to mind.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And, as long as we are speaking of
> candidates that run as the arbiter of morality
> (your words), we might as well include John
> Edwards in that list.


I never supported Edwards. I always thought he was doing this kind of thing.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe if Obama had anything of substance to talk
> about he wouldn't keep repeating that he doesn't
> have time for Brittany or Paris. Yet he doesn't
> seem to talk about much else of substance. It is
> hard to see how you can say he has run a positive
> campaign when he hasn't said much of anything. And
> every time he is asked to talk about substance, he
> tells everyone to go to his web site to read the
> details......
>
> ???
>
> If he can't articulate them in public, how can he
> believe in them? And what, did he even write them
> on his web site? Somehow I am sure it was someone
> else that articulated them for him.


I agree Obama has spent too much time responding to McSame's idiot ads...but I think yours is a case of hearing what you want to hear. Obama has spoken details on many issues. For example...drilling off shore oil...he supports it as part of a balanced and overall energy policy. In other words he is not going to hand over millions of dollars of new profits to American oil providers without getting something in return...as in tax credits paid by a reduction of tax write offs given the oil companies...increased investment in alternative fuels. This compares to McSame's windfall profit for the oil companies..and a "prize" for whomever develops a better battery (probably an oil/energy company anyway.

Gravis..do your parents know you post all this crap on here? They really need to invest in a better internet filter.

Bump for McCain